REPORT SUMMARY Date: 3/26/2003 Page 1 of 9

In addition to this summary, this report includes the following forms: 1 2 3 4 5 RATING CRITERIA AND CLASSIFICATIONS PROJECT PROPERTIES AND ANALYSIS PROPERTIES SUMMARY FMEA SPREADSHEET REPORT RECOMMENDED ACTIONS (Summary Report) CURRENT CONTROLS

Xfmea Report Sample Design FMEA

This report was generated with ReliaSofts Xfmea software in Microsoft Word. Similar reports can also be generated in Microsoft Excel. You can easily replace the Xfmea logo graphic with your own company logo. Within Word and Excel, reports can be edited/annotated, if necessary, and generated in PDF and/or HTML format for easy distribution. This report includes: A summary of the rating criteria (Severity Scale, Occurrence Scale, Detection Scale) and classifications that were used in the analysis. A summary of the project and analysis properties that were defined for the analysis. The Design FMEA (DFMEA) spreadsheet report in the SAE J1739 reporting format. A summary list of the recommended actions identified during the analysis. A summary list of the current controls identified during the analysis. Some graphical charts that were generated in Xfmeas Plot Viewer and copy/pasted into the report document, along with chart legend information. These include: o o o Pareto (bar) chart of the cause RPNs, ranked by initial RPN. Pie chart demonstrating the number of causes assigned to each available Occurrence rating. Pie chart demonstrating the number of causes assigned to each available Detection rating.

The report is based on the sample analysis provided in the SAE J1739 guidelines, on page 37.

Non-proprietary and non-confidential information.

Document Created 3/26/2003 Generated By ReliaSofts Xfmea Software http://www.ReliaSoft.com

RATING CRITERIA AND CLASSIFICATIONS Date: 3/26/2003 Page 2 of 9

RPN Calculation Method: Cause RPN = Severity x Occurrence x Detection Severity Rating Scale # Description 1 None 2 Very Minor 3 Minor 4 Very Low 5 Low 6 Moderate 7 High 8 Very High 9 Hazardous with warning 10 Hazardous without warning Detection Rating Scale # Description 1 Almost Certain 2 Very High 3 High 4 Moderately High 5 Moderate 6 Low 7 Very Low 8 Remote 9 Very Remote 10 Absolute Uncertainty Criteria Design Control will almost certainly detect a potential cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode. Very High chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode. High chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode. Moderately High chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode. Moderate chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode. Low chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode. Very Low chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode. Remote chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode. Very Remote chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode. Design Control will not and/or cannot detect a potential cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode; or there is no Design Control. Criteria No discernible effect. Fit and finish/Squeak and rattle item does not conform. Defect noticed by discriminating customers (less than 25%). Fit and finish/Squeak and rattle item does not conform. Defect noticed by 50% of customers. Fit and finish/Squeak and rattle item does not conform. Defect noticed by most customers (greater than 75%). Vehicle/Item operable but Comfort/Convenience item(s) inoperable. Customer somewhat dissatisfied. Vehicle/Item operable but Comfort/Convenience item(s) inoperable. Customer dissatisfied. Vehicle/Item operable but at a reduced level of performance. Customer very dissatisfied. Vehicle/Item inoperable (loss of primary function). Very high severity ranking when a potential failure mode affects safe vehicle operation and/or involves noncompliance with government regulation with warning. Very high severity ranking when a potential failure mode affects safe vehicle operation and/or involves noncompliance with government regulation without warning. Failure RPN = Sum of Cause RPNs # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Item RPN = Sum of Mode RPNS plus Sub-Item RPNs Description Remote: Failure is unlikely Low: Relatively few failures Low: Relatively few failures Moderate: Occasional failures Moderate: Occasional failures Moderate: Occasional failures High: Frequent failures High: Frequent failures Very High: Persistent failures Very High: Persistent failures Criteria <= 0.01 per thousand vehicles/items 0.1 per thousand vehicles/items 0.5 per thousand vehicles/items 1 per thousand vehicles/items 2 per thousand vehicles/items 5 per thousand vehicles/items 10 per thousand vehicles/items 20 per thousand vehicles/items 50 per thousand vehicles/items => 100 per thousand vehicles/items

Occurrence Rating Scale

Classification Options Abbreviation C KI KLd KLg S Description Critical Key Intermediate Key Leading Key Lagging Significant

Non-proprietary and non-confidential information.

Document Created 3/26/2003 Generated By ReliaSofts Xfmea Software http://www.ReliaSoft.com

PROJECT PROPERTIES AND ANALYSIS PROPERTIES Date: 3/26/2003 Page 3 of 9

Project Properties Project Name Design FMEA Project Description This sample project was prepared based on the Design FMEA (DFMEA) on page 37 of the SAE J1739 guidelines. Remarks The information in this project could also be used to prepare a sample DFMEA like the one on page 64 of the AIAG FMEA-3 guidelines. To do this, the AIAG DFMEA profile must be applied to the project. Based on Profile J1739 DFMEA

Analysis Properties ITEM FMEA Number 1234 Product 3 - Front Door L.H. Prepared By A. Tate - X6412 - Body Engr Key Date 3/3/2003 Model Year(s)/Program(s) 199X/Lion 4dr/Wagon Release Date FMEA Date (Orig.) 2/28/2003 FMEA Date (Rev.) 3/3/2003 Mission Primary Approval Approval Date

Design Responsibility Body Engineering

Core Team Others Affected T. Fender - Car Product Dev., C. Childers - Manufacturing, J. Ford - Assy Ops (Dalton, Fraser, Henley Assembly Plants)

Non-proprietary and non-confidential information.

Document Created 3/26/2003 Generated By ReliaSofts Xfmea Software http://www.ReliaSoft.com

POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS System 1 - Automobile FMEA Number 1234 Front Door L.H. Page 4 of 9 Subsystem 2 - Body Closures X Component 3 - Front Door L.H. Design Responsibility Body Engineering Prepared By A. Tate - X6412 - Body Engr Model Year(s)/Program(s) 199X/Lion 4dr/Wagon Key Date 3/3/2003 FMEA Date (Orig.) 2/28/2003 (Rev) 3/3/2003 Core Team T. Fender - Car Product Dev., C. Childers - Manufacturing, J. Ford - Assy Ops (Dalton, Fraser, Henley Assembly Plants)
Action Results Potential Failure Mode Function Potential Effect(s) of Failure Potential Cause(s)/Mechanism(s) of Failure Occur Detec Class Current Design Controls Recommended Action(s) Responsibility & Target Completion Date RPN Sev

Item

RPN

Occ

Sev

Det

Actions Taken

3 - Front Door L.H. - Ingress to and egress from Corroded interior lower door vehicle. panels - Occupant protection from weather, noise, and side impact. - Support anchorage for door hardware including mirror, hinges, latch and window regulator. - Provide proper surface for appearance items - paint and soft trim. Deteriorated life of door leading to: - Unsatisfactory appearance due to rust through paint over time. - Impaired function of interior door hardware. 7 Upper edge of protective wax application specified for inner door panels is too low. 6 Vehicle general durability test veh. T-118 T-109 T-301 7 294 Add laboratory accelerated A. Tate Body Engrg corrosion testing. - 2/25/2003 Based on test results (Test No. 1481) upper edge spec raised 125 mm. 7 2 2 28

Insufficient wax thickness specified.

Vehicle general durability testing as above. - Detection

196

Add laboratory accelerated A. Tate Body Engrg corrosion testing. - 3/28/2003

Test results (Test No. 1481) show specified thickness is adequate.

28

Conduct Design of Experiments (DOE) on wax thickness.

A. Tate Body Engrg - 3/28/2003

DOE shows 25% variation in specified thickness is acceptable.

Inappropriate wax formulation specified.

Physical and Chem Lab test Report No. 1265. - Detection

28

28

Entrapped air prevents wax from entering corner/edge access.

Design aid investigation with nonfunctioning spray head. - Detection Laboratory test using "worst case" wax application and hole size. - Detection

280

Add team evaluation using production spray equipment and specified wax.

Body Engrg & Assy Ops - 3/28/2003

Based on test, addition vent holes will be provided in affected areas.

21

Wax application plugs door drain holes.

21

21

Insufficient room between panels for spray head access.

Drawing evaluation of spray head access. - Detection

112

Add team evaluation using design aid buck and spray head.

Body Engrg & Assy Ops - 3/28/2003

Evaluation showed adequate access.

Non-proprietary and non-confidential information.

Document Created 3/26/2003 Generated By ReliaSofts Xfmea Software http://www.ReliaSoft.com

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS (Summary Report)

Date: 3/26/2003 Page 5 of 9

Potential Cause(s)/Mechanism(s) of Failure Upper edge of protective wax application specified for inner door panels is too low. Insufficient wax thickness specified. Insufficient wax thickness specified. Entrapped air prevents wax from entering corner/edge access. Insufficient room between panels for spray head access.

# 1

Recommended Action(s) Add laboratory accelerated corrosion testing.

Target Completion Date 2/25/2003

Responsibility A. Tate Body Engrg

Actions Taken Based on test results (Test No. 1481) upper edge spec raised 125 mm.

Item Front Door L.H.

Priority

2 3 4

Add laboratory accelerated corrosion testing. Conduct Design of Experiments (DOE) on wax thickness. Add team evaluation using production spray equipment and specified wax. Add team evaluation using design aid buck and spray head.

3/28/2003 3/28/2003 3/28/2003

A. Tate Body Engrg A. Tate Body Engrg Body Engrg & Assy Ops

Test results (Test No. 1481) show specified Front Door L.H. thickness is adequate. DOE shows 25% variation in specified thickness is acceptable. Based on test, addition vent holes will be provided in affected areas. Evaluation showed adequate access. Front Door L.H. Front Door L.H.

3/28/2003

Body Engrg & Assy Ops

Front Door L.H.

Non-proprietary and non-confidential information.

Document Created 3/26/2003 Generated By ReliaSofts Xfmea Software http://www.ReliaSoft.com

CURRENT CONTROLS Date: 3/26/2003 Page 6 of 9

Potential Cause(s)/Mechanism(s) of Failure Upper edge of protective wax application specified for inner door panels is too low.

# 1

Current Design Controls Vehicle general durability test veh. T-118 T-109 T-301

Control Type Detection

Item Front Door L.H.

Function

Potential Failure Mode

Potential Effect(s) of Failure Deteriorated life of door leading to: - Unsatisfactory appearance due to rust through paint over time - Impaired function of interior door hardware

- Ingress to and egress from vehicle Corroded interior lower door - Occupant protection from weather, noise, and panels side impact - Support anchorage for door hardware including mirror, hinges, latch and window regulator - Provide proper surface for appearance items paint and soft trim - Ingress to and egress from vehicle Corroded interior lower door - Occupant protection from weather, noise, and panels side impact - Support anchorage for door hardware including mirror, hinges, latch and window regulator - Provide proper surface for appearance items paint and soft trim - Ingress to and egress from vehicle Corroded interior lower door - Occupant protection from weather, noise, and panels side impact - Support anchorage for door hardware including mirror, hinges, latch and window regulator - Provide proper surface for appearance items paint and soft trim - Ingress to and egress from vehicle Corroded interior lower door - Occupant protection from weather, noise, and panels side impact - Support anchorage for door hardware including mirror, hinges, latch and window regulator - Provide proper surface for appearance items paint and soft trim - Ingress to and egress from vehicle Corroded interior lower door - Occupant protection from weather, noise, and panels side impact - Support anchorage for door hardware including mirror, hinges, latch and window regulator - Provide proper surface for appearance items paint and soft trim - Ingress to and egress from vehicle Corroded interior lower door - Occupant protection from weather, noise, and panels side impact - Support anchorage for door hardware including mirror, hinges, latch and window regulator - Provide proper surface for appearance items paint and soft trim

Vehicle general durability testing - as above.

Detection

Front Door L.H.

Deteriorated life of door leading to: - Unsatisfactory appearance due to rust through paint over time - Impaired function of interior door hardware

Insufficient wax thickness specified.

Physical and Chem Lab test - Report No. 1265.

Detection

Front Door L.H.

Deteriorated life of door leading to: - Unsatisfactory appearance due to rust through paint over time - Impaired function of interior door hardware

Inappropriate wax formulation specified.

Design aid investigation with nonfunctioning spray head.

Detection

Front Door L.H.

Deteriorated life of door leading to: - Unsatisfactory appearance due to rust through paint over time - Impaired function of interior door hardware

Entrapped air prevents wax from entering corner/edge access.

Laboratory test using "worst case" wax application and hole size.

Detection

Front Door L.H.

Deteriorated life of door leading to: - Unsatisfactory appearance due to rust through paint over time - Impaired function of interior door hardware

Wax application plugs door drain holes.

Drawing evaluation of spray head access.

Detection

Front Door L.H.

Deteriorated life of door leading to: - Unsatisfactory appearance due to rust through paint over time - Impaired function of interior door hardware

Insufficient room between panels for spray head access.

Non-proprietary and non-confidential information.

Document Created 3/26/2003 Generated By ReliaSofts Xfmea Software http://www.ReliaSoft.com

CHARTS Date: 3/26/2003 Page 7 of 9

Causes Ranked by Initial RPN (1 to 6)

300 294 280

XFMEA Database: C:/Examples/Xfmea Demo.rsf Project: Design FMEA Selected Items: 3 - Front Door L.H. Causes Ranked by Initial RPN (1 to 6) 1: RPNi = 294, RPNr = 28 - Upper edge of protective wax application specified for inner door panels is too low. (Item: 3 - Front Door L.H.) 2: RPNi = 280, RPNr = 21 - Entrapped air prevents wax from entering corner/edge access. (Item: 3 - Front Door L.H.) 3: RPNi = 196, RPNr = 28 - Insufficient wax thickness specified. (Item: 3 - Front Door L.H.) 4: RPNi = 112, RPNr = 7 - Insufficient room between panels for spray head access. (Item: 3 Front Door L.H. ) 5: RPNi = 28, RPNr = 28 - Inappropriate wax formulation specified. (Item: 3 - Front Door L.H. ) 6: RPNi = 21, RPNr = 21 - Wax application plugs door drain holes. (Item: 3 - Front Door L.H.)

250

200

196

Initial and Revised RPN

150

112 100

50 28 21 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 28 28 28 21 21

Cause

Non-proprietary and non-confidential information.

Document Created 3/26/2003 Generated By ReliaSofts Xfmea Software http://www.ReliaSoft.com

CHARTS Date: 3/26/2003 Page 8 of 9

Frequency of Cause Occurrence Ratings

XFMEA Database: C:/Xfmea/Examples/Xfmea Demo.rsf Project: Design FMEA Selected Items: 3 - Front Door L.H. Frequency of Cause Occurrence Ratings 1 - Remote: Failure is unlikely: Qty = 0 (0%) 2 - Low: Relatively few failures: Qty = 1 (16.667%) 3 - Low: Relatively few failures: Qty = 1 (16.667%) 4 - Moderate: Occasional failures: Qty = 2 (33.333%) 5 - Moderate: Occasional failures: Qty = 1 (16.667%) 6 - Moderate: Occasional failures: Qty = 1 (16.667%) 7 - High: Frequent failures: Qty = 0 (0%) 8 - High: Frequent failures: Qty = 0 (0%) 9 - Very High: Persistent failures: Qty = 0 (0%) 10 - Very High: Persistent failures: Qty = 0 (0%) Not Assigned: Qty = 0 (0%)

3 - Low: Relatively few failures: Qty = 1 (16.667%)

2 - Low: Relatively few failures: Qty = 1 (16.667%)

4 - Moderate: Occasional failures: Qty = 2 (33.333%)

6 - Moderate: Occasional failures: Qty = 1 (16.667%)

5 - Moderate: Occasional failures: Qty = 1 (16.667%)

Total Quantity of Causes = 6

Non-proprietary and non-confidential information.

Document Created 3/26/2003 Generated By ReliaSofts Xfmea Software http://www.ReliaSoft.com

CHARTS Date: 3/26/2003 Page 9 of 9

Frequency of Cause Detection Ratings

XFMEA Database: C:/Xfmea/Examples/Xfmea Demo.rsf Project: Design FMEA Selected Items: 3 - Front Door L.H. Frequency of Cause Detection Ratings 1 - Almost Certain: Qty = 1 (16.667%) 2 - Very High: Qty = 1 (16.667%) 3 - High: Qty = 0 (0%) 4 - Moderately High: Qty = 1 (16.667%) 5 - Moderate: Qty = 0 (0%) 6 - Low: Qty = 0 (0%) 7 - Very Low: Qty = 2 (33.333%) 8 - Remote: Qty = 1 (16.667%) 9 - Very Remote: Qty = 0 (0%) 10 - Absolute Uncertainty: Qty = 0 (0%) Not Assigned: Qty = 0 (0%)

2 - Very High: Qty = 1 (16.667%)

4 - Moderately High: Qty = 1 (16.667%)

1 - Almost Certain: Qty = 1 (16.667%)

8 - Remote: Qty = 1 (16.667%)

7 - Very Low: Qty = 2 (33.333%)

Total Quantity of Causes = 6

Non-proprietary and non-confidential information.

Document Created 3/26/2003 Generated By ReliaSofts Xfmea Software http://www.ReliaSoft.com